Community

DHCS Housing – Do they have a duty of care?

As a tenant of housing I am curious do they have a duty of care as landlords to their tenants. If a tennant is a constant victim of verbal and physical abuse, that has escalated from AVO’s to now criminal charge, and I will add with the area managers full knowledge, does the department have a duty to the tenant that is the victim.

If not why?

They are still regardless of being a department, still renting out a property which requires us as tenants to abide by codes and regulations.

I know DHCS lie, as I’ve been on the other, eg; regarding a letter my daughter and myself sent to Maureen Sheehan, she never recieved it, as I spoke to a “Rhonda” she said the letter was in the file and had not been passed on, she also told me it was serious, of course I ran housing again, they denied ever having the letter or that a Rhonda ever worked there, I will expose them.

All I can say is Get legal advise if unsure – I know I am screwed and will be homeless because of DHCS policy and drunks

How to avoid tenant report of assault for a pay rise 101:

Get assaulted by a ‘drunk’ that is able to block access and make voilent threats

DHCS will then assist you in getting a bit of paper that only says that YOUR moving out on the STANDARD TRANSFER LIST because DHCS likes drunks for the good it does the public (only 20 years wait – aka never)

Nothing about how they let ‘drunks’ block the access way while drinking execive amounts of grog on the grog shops account

Then because of you being assaulted once you will then be the target of further assaults simply because you made a complaint to DHCS

DHCS will say they put you on the HIGH NEEDS TRANSFER list (only 10 years of continued assaults with each drunk taking a turn – some even get food to help buy more grog)

To aid in failure of reporting true condition of the property as a getto – the inspection changes to a PRE VACATION where ONLY the DHCS OFFICER CAN REPORT ISSUES (aka they write you a bill)

This allows the DHCS officers to avoid reporting the preventing of access or fault causing undew interfearences to access

2 years later DHCS officers will then attempt to get a STANDARD INSPECTION

Even going as far to say that you have prevented INSPECTION while knowing the bastard act they just pulled to avoid liability

“Extortion means forcing someone to do something, usually give up something valuable under threats of injury, death or other illegal harm. Blackmail means specifically obtaining something of value under the threat to disclose something shameful or disreputable about a person. This can be true even if it would not have been illegal to simply make the reputation-damaging information public”

CT, think thats it.. its worse than that – Secret payments are made to select people who distribute the funding though groups of violent druggies for amounts up to $1k after dobbing in others that dont pay up a ransom or play the game needed for protection

Helps keeps the peace

Like grog shops that sell grog on account to people who cant even walk to the shop because they are intoxicated

Parties accept donations
Ministers have membership in parties
Ministers write regulation and set payrises for lack of bad news
officers enforce and enable regulation compliance of looking the other way

Then tack on the point where some in the community are able to act as reporters to authorities for secret payments while the same community members are assaulting and evicting people from tenancies.

Further to what “One” has to say – recall that Ian Hirst eventually struck back at the violent druggies that used to plague his area of public housing and did the cops thank him for removinga junkie scuzz-bucket from society?
Nope. They tried to do Ian for murder.
And failed.

It seems if you’re a criminal scuzz-bucket the government will bend over backwards in every conceivable way to prevent anybody from impinging on your “right” to lead a life of crime.

In 2006 I had my life impeared by a Drunk Tenant that DHCS permitted to drink and be voilent within the access way to my tenancy

In 2008 – after repeated assaults the Department of Housing, ACT Human Rights, and the Discrimination commissioner took court action to prevent future complaints against members of a community room that the landlord funds.

From 2006 to 2010 the same group with landlord funding still attempt assaults with aid of the police who attend but never arrest drunks in public.

Other tenancies and lives have been destroyed by the Stanhope Social Policy of deferal, denyal, and outright lies (I am One of many X $$$$ – would be very interested in class action if anyone is considering such).

Ask your self when was the last time the ACT Government paid out for neglect by its landlord which resulted in death, impairment, or injury?

Amazing what a secret donation does for people that hide behind 247 security for wonders that write laws without them selves being bashed

there are 2 issues here:
– Does DHCS owe the OP a duty of care because they are getting harrassed by a neighbour – not really – the impact of the other persons behaviour on the tenant is not their business.

With respect, I disagree. A “duty of care” in the legal sense arises if OP is so directly affected by DHCS’ course of action that DHCS ought to have OP’s situation in mind when DHCS is contemplating that course of action.

Here, the course of action is allocating OP to a dwelling. Placing OP next to his/her violent neighbour or persisting in allowing that neighbour to live next to OP – thereby placing OP in danger – would seem to be a pretty clear breach of that duty of care, to me. The AVO and criminal charge should be sufficient proof of that danger to negate any arguments of remoteness.

This would be the same department that took over ten years to evict one David Harold Eastman from his gubby residence? I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

Of course not – they dont actually ever seem to go after anyone who might be trouble for them, like Eastman or a suspeced dealer or violent tenant – they seem to go for the “easy” pickings – like the elderly or infirm… rather annoying and unjust…

Amendments to give renters more rights have passed the Legislative Assembly. It will be easier for renters to keep a pet, make minor modifications to their rental property, and to break a lease without incurring significant costs https://t.co/UG9YEv9ilQ(7 hours ago)